Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
A woman has lost her negligence lawsuit against a motorist who she claimed crashed into her while attempting to cross the Churchill- Roosevelt Highway, in Arima, almost a decade ago.
Delivering a judgment last month, High Court Judge Robin Mohammed dismissed Nikisha De Graff-Oliver’s case against Deoraj Jaggernauth and his insurance company Nagico Insurance Limited.
In rejecting De Graff-Oliver’s case, Justice Mohammed upheld Jaggernauth and the company’s counter-claim in which they sought $8,500, which was paid by the company to repair Jaggernauth’s vehicle and provide a replacement while it (the vehicle) was being repaired.
However, Jaggernauth could not enjoy the legal victory as he passed away while awaiting judgment in the case, which went on trial in late 2018.
According to the evidence, the accident occurred at the intersection of the highway and O’Meara Road, in Arima, on September 20, 2014.
De Graff-Oliver, who was employed at the San Fernando outlet of a popular fast-food franchise, was crossing the eastbound lane of the highway to meet a group of co-workers, who were parked on the shoulder of the westbound lane waiting to give her a lift to work when Jaggernauth’s car made contact with her.
De Graff-Oliver suffered a fractured right knee as well as injuries to her ribs and head. Her anterior cruciate ligament was completely ruptured.
De Graff-Oliver claimed that Jaggernauth was negligent as he drove recklessly by breaking a red light and did not give due regard to pedestrians such as her.
Jaggernauth and the company denied any wrongdoing as they contended that De Graff-Oliver was responsible for the accident as she attempted to cross the highway when she should not have.
In resolving the case, Justice Mohammed noted that De Graff-Oliver had several inconsistencies in her evidence.
“The claimant by her own evidence accepted that she crossed when it was unsafe to do so and as such, she accepted the risk associated with her actions,” he said.
While Justice Mohammed noted that he could not determine whether the traffic light was red, amber, or green at the time of the accident, he determined liability in the case based on the location of the collision and the point of impact.
He found the point of impact to the side of the vehicle suggested that Jaggernauth’s claim that De Graff-Oliver ran into his car was more plausible.
“If the Claimant was struck by the First Defendant’s vehicle, it is more likely that her first point of contact with the vehicle would have been with the front part of the fender as opposed to the side of the fender closer to the front passenger door,” he said.
Justice Mohammed noted that Jaggernauth could not be faulted for what transpired.
“It does not appear reasonable for a prudent driver to expect a pedestrian to cross or step out in a lane of the highway when it is unsafe to do so,” he said.
“A highway is not a place to be dodging vehicles seeking to cross to the other side when it is unsafe to do so,” he added.
In addition to the compensation for the damage to Jaggernauth’s vehicle, De Graff-Oliver was also ordered to pay $16,890 in legal costs for Jaggernauth and the company defending her case and pursuing the counter-claim against her.
De Graff-Oliver was represented by Earl John and Laura Bailey, while Richard Jagai and Varun Debideen represented Jaggernauth and the company.